Mr Jamie S Broadbent

Profession: Operating department practitioner

Registration Number: ODP35560

Interim Order: Imposed on 06 May 2016

Hearing Type: Review Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 21/05/2019 End: 13:00 21/05/2019

Location: Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service, 405 Kennington Road, London, SE11 4PT

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: No further action

Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.



Whilst registered as an Operating Department Practitioner you were convicted on 29 January 2016 at Teeside Magistrates Court of:


1. On 28 August 2015 at Stockton-On-Tees had in your possession a quantity of cocaine a controlled drug of Class A in contravention of section 5(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 contrary to section 5(2) of and schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.


2. That between 8 September 2014 and 28 August 2015 at Stockton-On-Tees you stole midazolam, diazepam, ketamine and associated medical equipment, of a value unknown belonging to North Tees Hospital contrary to Section 1(1) and 7 of the Theft Act 1968.


3. By reason of your convictions your fitness to practise is impaired.



1. The Registrant was employed as an Operating Department Practitioner (ODP) at North Tees Hospital. He was arrested on 28 August 2015 at the hospital, his locker was searched and a quantity of cocaine was found. His home address was then searched and empty drug ampoules were found which had been taken from the Hospital and would have contained Dizepam, Midazolam and Ketamine. A drug ampoule which would have contained Diazepam was also recovered from the Registrant’s brother’s home.

2. The Registrant was convicted of offences of possession of a Class A controlled drug and theft on 29 January 2016, following pleas of guilty. He was sentenced on 25 February 2016 at Teesside Crown Court to imprisonment for 8 months, suspended for 24 months; with a rehabilitation activity requirement to carry out unpaid work for 120 hours. He was ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £100 and prosecution costs of £100.

3. The Registrant did not attend and was not represented at the Final Hearing on 28 November 2016. The Final Hearing Panel found the facts proved and that they constituted misconduct and that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on the basis of the personal component and the public component. The Final Hearing Panel decided that the appropriate and proportionate order was a Suspension Order for twelve months.

4. The Registrant attended the first Review Hearing on 30 November 2017 by telephone. The Panel noted that there was some positive evidence relating to the Registrant’s rehabilitation, but that the Registrant had not produced a reflective piece, independent evidence of abstinence from drugs, confirmation of continuing professional development (CPD), or evidence of his insight as to the impact of his conduct on patient safety or public confidence. The Review Panel could not exclude the risk of repetition and decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired. The Review Panel decided to extend the Suspension Order by a further twelve months.

5. The Registrant attended the second Review Hearing on 13 November 2018 by telephone. The Panel noted that that there had been no change of circumstances since the last review. The Registrant had not addressed the issues raised by previous panels or provided evidence to demonstrate that his fitness to practise was not impaired. The Panel therefore found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired. The Review Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was now more committed and was engaging in a meaningful way with the Panel. The Panel therefore decided that it was appropriate to provide the Registrant with a further opportunity to remediate his current impairment. The Panel decided to extend the Suspension Order by six months.

Documents provided by the Registrant

6. The Registrant provided written independent and reflective evidence:

a) a testimonial dated 20 November 2017 from his Offender Manager confirming that the Registrant had complied fully with all aspects of his order;

b) a positive testimonial dated 26 November 2018 from the Registrant’s Recovery Co-ordinator, North Yorkshire Horizons confirming that the Registrant had engaged with the programme and remained abstinent;

c) a positive reference dated 3 December 2018 from the Registrant’s Senior Operations Manager at his current employer;

d) a testimonial from SJ, Paramedic, dated 16 December 2018;

e) a letter from the Registrant’s GP dated 8 March 2019 and evidence of negative drug testing for ten substances dated 4 February 2019, 6 March 2019 and 13 May 2019;

f) a reflective piece dated 3 December 2018 addressing the impact of the Registrant’s behaviour on patient safety, the NHS, the reputation of the profession and the need for high standards in healthcare;

g) CPD certificates.


7. Ms Whitby outlined the background and the evidence provided by the Registrant. She acknowledged that the Registrant had provided independent and reflective evidence as suggested by the Review Panels. She stated that the HCPC was neutral on the issue of whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired.
8. The Panel heard evidence from the Registrant. The Panel found that he was an open, convincing, credible witness. He was reflective and self-critical in relation to the matters that led to his conviction.

9. The Panel explored with the Registrant the background circumstances that led to his offending behaviour. The Registrant demonstrated insight into a wide range of contributory factors including his personal and family circumstances, the absence of support networks, his personality and peer groups at the time of the events, and his mental health.

10. The Registrant also explained in more detail the changes that he has implemented over the period since his conviction. He acknowledged that until November 2018 he had not responded to the recommendations made by the previous Panels. He explained that he now understands that he was on a journey or process of recovery and was not ready to take the required steps until that stage.

11. The Registrant gave the Panel cogent evidence of his current ability to manage stressful situations and of his support networks. He explained to the Panel his plans for the future. He has discussed with potential future employers the possibility of a return to practice and the requirements for supervised practise on a return to practise. The Registrant has read and understood the HCPC requirements set out in the “Returning to Practise” guide.

12. The Registrant demonstrated to the Panel a positive and responsible attitude in relation to the need to update his learning and skills because he has not practised as an ODP for more than two years. He is committed to returning to the profession, despite his success over the last two years in the different field of hospitality management.

13. The Panel was impressed by the Registrant’s evidence and was persuaded that he has addressed the root causes of his addiction which led to his convictions. The Registrant now has strategies in place to manage stress.

14. The Panel was also persuaded that the Registrant has insight into the seriousness and impact on public confidence of his convictions. In his evidence he described the significant loss of trust that his past conduct had caused and the ongoing need to rebuild trust, so that confidence can be placed in him as an Operating Department Practitioner.

15. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant has an adequate level of insight and that there was little risk of repetition of the matters that led to the finding of impairment. The Panel was also satisfied that all the matters in the original finding of impairment have been addressed by the Registrant. In these circumstances the Panel did not identify any public interest reasons which required a finding that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is impaired.

16. The Panel noted that the Registrant will be required to complete the requirements for returning to practise and that this will ensure that the Registrant’s skills and knowledge are brought up to date, in the same way as any ODP who has not practised within the profession for a significant period of time.

17. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not currently impaired and herby revokes the current 6-month Suspension Order with immediate effect.


ORDER: The Registrar is directed to revoke the current Suspension Order with immediate effect.


No notes available

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Mr Jamie S Broadbent

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
21/05/2019 Conduct and Competence Committee Review Hearing No further action
13/11/2018 Conduct and Competence Committee Review Hearing Suspended
30/11/2017 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Suspended
28/11/2016 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Suspended